CrawfordHollow wrote:Would it not be more accurate to say that we are more like a generated thought form rather than all we are is a generated thought form?

Guess that would depend on which aspect is being discussed but generally anything which apparently originates does so as a result of ignorance and clinging. 'Generated thought form' isn't a very good way to describe it but the origination of an apparent subject-object dichotomy is a result of imputation and it is sustained by habitual tendencies which result from imputing.

CrawfordHollow wrote:...although I don't think that it would be exactly correct from a Dzogchen POV to say that all we are is a generated thought form- rigpa is much more than this (so they say)...

Rigpa is only knowledge of the base, not what we are, and 'generated thought forms' wouldn't be too far off the mark when it comes to describing what we are. Sentient beings are byproducts of ignorance and imputation.

Generated thought forms is merely a description of how a dream form, or a tulpa, or a number of other created entities come about. It's not a definition on it's own. I just saw a relationship as humans are also entities. So are plants and insects.

And as i was speaking about a yoga that deals with that which would prevent rigpa, that was where my focus was. I almost brought rigpa into it but i was afraid i would do it too ineptly. Not that great with definition. Confuse matters even more. But because rigpa is not generated thought, it is more than a thought or form, it is what we are, not the forms we think we are, seem to be, that's what illusion is. I'm using rigpa here as direct, not as a link to, (a knowledge of base) Because with direct there is no seperation from, not one thing here linked to another there. Not 2 - non dualistic. Buddha.

One of the first requirements in my sangha was the recognition of rigpa. Recognition of Buddha (being what you are) You'll hear of "being in rigpa" which i'm assuming is referring to it as a 'state', temporary usually. Because a permanent state would be a full Buddha, wouldn't it? Sans everything. Sans form, sans identity, sans body, sans consciousness, sans sensation and sans sans these things....I think i was about to do a version of the Prajna Paramita...Which is much better than i could ever do.

sahaja wrote:. I'm using rigpa here as direct, not as a link to, (a knowledge of base) Because with direct there is no seperation from, not one thing here linked to another there. Not 2 - non dualistic. Buddha.

One of the first requirements in my sangha was the recognition of rigpa. Recognition of Buddha (being what you are) You'll hear of "being in rigpa" which i'm assuming is referring to it as a 'state', temporary usually. Because a permanent state would be a full Buddha, wouldn't it? Sans everything. Sans form, sans identity, sans body, sans consciousness, sans sensation and sans sans these things....I think i was about to do a version of the Prajna Paramita...Which is much better than i could ever do.

5 skandas/5 lights/5 adulterations(poisons) for the Buddhist side

It's knowledge of the basis (vidyā). Definitely not what you are. It is the basis for practice and so yes direct introduction is first and foremost. 'Being in rigpa' is resting in that knowledge.

sahaja wrote:Anybody ever built a tulpa? Either as a part of or extension of dream yoga or for any other reason for that matter.

Yes, of course. My Lama emphasizes Tulpa-building very much for our Sangha. He says that in these modern time it comes of very handy given the amount of multitasking we all usually face. So with your Tulpas built, you send our Tulpa to do your job, while you can stay home watching internetporn. Very handy.

That being said. Did any of ever fly? And if can you teach me how. My teacher is kind of uptight about it.

If you are doing "experiments" with "thoughtforms" or "golems" or "egregores" or "homonculi" you are not a Dzogchempa you are a Western occultist, and your "teacher" is a Western occultist.

(Furthermore if you are creating them out of the strength of your own discipline or self-will that is not "sacred magick" according to the definitions of Western occultism - read Tomberg's Meditations on the Tarot (writen as "Anonymous") to learn the difference - and IMHO every single such "thoughtform" which is created out of such force of self-will is a tower of Babel which will eventually crash on top of its builder. Meditate on The Tower. In Western occultism the real process is top-down, not bottom-up. Yadda yadda. Likely you know all this already).

I'm not judgin. Just sayin. You may be getting some knowledge, who am I to judge?

That's not the question.

The question is, how can you think that what you are doing bears any resemblance to Dzogchen, if you know anything about Dzogchen?

As with everything, we need to start with motivation. The motivation with all vehicles should be - compassion.

Not self-improvement, not power, not to dominate, master or conquer our circumstances (hence my eventual dissatisfaction with Western occultism) - compassion.

Including Dzogchen.

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days; I fled Him, down the arches of the years; I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways, Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears, I hid from Him, and under running laughter. Up vistaed hopes I sped; And shot, precipitated, Adown Titanic glooms of chasmèd fears, From those strong Feet that followed, followed after. But with unhurrying chase, And unperturbèd pace, Deliberate speed, majestic instancy, They beat - and a Voice beat - More instant than the Feet - ‘All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.’

sahaja wrote:Anybody ever built a tulpa? Either as a part of or extension of dream yoga or for any other reason for that matter.

I can't really answer the question the way you are asking, but I was just thinking that you could go over to Malcolm Smiths board and ask him to verify what I believe he may have said many years ago, if my memory serves me right, that there are "Tulpas" and "Tulkus" named in Pema Lingpa's lineage, "Tulpa" within that context meant an emanation in the lineage verses an incarnated Lama: "Trulku".

I remember the same subject came up on esangha many years ago, and I had some fun with the lovely Chicago lady "Red_Dust" concerning the idea of Tulpas... the topic was actually fun (if you can believe that)...she was a wonderful woman and had a voracious sense of humor.

If I get my old "independent computer memory" box fixed, I "saved" many esangha posts that I found enjoyable including that topic on Tulpas.

Anyway, the Tulpas in the Lingpa lineage were not "ghosts" or "phantoms" or anything negative... neither were they thought of as just some kind of created projection etc or made from a thought form or from maybe something like ectoplasm...from what I understood they were emanations who were Lamas & teachers within the lineage, so the sense was that they were part of the lineage masters (Lamas etc), generally when we say Mandarava had hundreds of emanations, we could say she had 100's of "tulpas", and this wouldn't have had any "bad" connotation the way (as I understand it) the word was originally used in Tibetan.

The quote someone gave previously in the thread, actually was used in The Golden Letters book, The Three Statements of Garab Dorje, the quote is mentioned in a note from the book:

Vajranatha (1996: p. 350) in a note to his English translation of the life story of Garab Dorje defines a Nirmita thus:

"A Nirmita (sprul-pa) is an emanation or a manifestation. A Buddha or other realized being is able to project many such Nirmitas simultaneously in an infinite variety of forms."

The Quote Citation above was from: Reynolds, John Myrdhin (1996). The Golden Letters: The Three Statements of Garab Dorje, the first teacher of Dzogchen, together with a commentary by Dza Patrul Rinpoche entitled "The Special Teaching of the Wise and Glorious King". With Foreward by Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche. New York, USA: Snow Lion Publications. ISBN 1-55939-050-6. p.350

This maybe is like the idea of tulpa as a flower, maybe a "tulip" he he...but seriously, we're taught that a Nirmanakya can manifest as a medicinal plants for example, not only as human beings.

Tulpa (sprul-pa) was a borrowed word for spiritualists and in borrowing the word ADN applied it to her "monk" friend who she claimed was a projection, and also it took on a negative connotation, however in a real sense the word originally applied to some of the emanations in Tibet, as in (sprul-pa) in a lineage, that is what I was recalling some practitioners discussed on the old esangha thread, (sprul-pa) however had the distinction of being applied to an emanation, whereas the (sprul-pa) description was not applied to the direct incarnations of masters which were usually referred to as Tul-ku (Sprul-sku).

Once again, a talk with Malcolm about it, might be the ticket, as he can actually read with ease and know where to look rather quickly within the TBRC files on (sprul-pa) and mention of them, also he'd probably want to look them up if someone asked him about it, but it could take a few hours, like I said, he's got his own forum. I'm too lazy to go looking through those pechas for tulpa info in the TBRC, although I'm a member of TBRC... I guess I'm just not very curious about the subject... lol, my bad.

sahaja wrote:Where are these rules about what is or is not Dzogchen and who came up with them? I'm sure my teacher would be find them amusing.

Never mind dualism. Just try to get beyond illusion a bit, or at least beyond the arrogance of conceptual mind. If you cannot see or understand perhaps it's because the ideas you have are blinding you, they have become your limitations. Ideas and beliefs are only just that, ideas you have. Or rather, ideas that have you.

Me-thought. As soon as that first thought is grasped, others and their characteristics-ideation follows on the chain. Hey you! They blablabla....